Fishburn Hedges

05.05.2011

Bill Clinton may not have been original when he said “never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel” but he was right. As Andrew Marr, “Married Actor” and “Famous Footballer” have found in recent weeks, defending your legal rights to privacy when the media has the dirt on you can feel like an uneven battle.

Whatever the right and wrongs on the privacy debate, the issues are unlikely to get an unbiased hearing in the media. After all, it is in the commercial interests of the tabloids to print salacious stories that we chat about over coffee or a pint. That’s what sells newspapers or, increasingly, drives traffic to websites.

The debate on whether it is morally right to run stories about “celebrities” private lives has been presented as a debate about press freedom. But one person’s freedom is another person’s invaded privacy. A marvellous article by Hugh Grant – yes that Hugh Grant – in the New Statesman turned the tables on a former tabloid hack who had stalked him. The hack argued that Grant had chosen to be in the public domain by his choice of profession (something that Grant argued against) and that by being in the public domain forfeited some of his rights to privacy. This moral dilemma has been picked up by a former journalist – Brian Cathcart – in an excellent blog on press freedom. His analysis is better than mine, concluding that it is wrong that “the loss of privacy [has become] a kind of tax the famous must pay.”

The question then comes down to whether concerns about the media can be debated effectively in the media. If you ask Unilever and Proctor & Gamble to debate issues about soap powder, you would expect them to muster arguments that are in their commercial interests. So when discussing issues such as super injunctions, phone tapping or indeed media ownership, you should expect media organisations to argue from a position of self interest.

This was shown by the Vince Cable “sting” by the Telegraph last December. The original article did not include comments he made about having “declared war on Mr Murdoch”, which then came out on the blog by BBC Business editor Robert Peston. The Telegraph said this was an oversight but cynics argued that it was in the Telegraph’s commercial interest to keep Dr Cable in a role that would make it more likely that Rupert Murdoch’s bid to take full control of BSkyB would be referred the competition authorities. Following the reporting of Dr Cable’s comments, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was given oversight of the bid and it ultimately was waved through, much to the disgust of certain rival media organisations.

So how does this impact on how you deal with the media? The truth is you have to keep your eyes wide open. The world is increasingly commercial and the media is increasingly guided by commercial interests. Journalists may want to uphold the sword of truth, but they know where their bread is buttered. I’ve worked at proprietor-owned media groups, and the problem is not the instructions from the proprietor, but the editors trying to second guess what he or she wants.

Compromising the privacy of people in the public eye sells. Simple as that. And so long as it sells the media will do it. Legislators, lawyers, communications professionals and “celebrities” have to realise and plan their strategies accordingly.

Posted by Jason Nisse

Visit our privacy microsite for more discussion